Sunteți pe pagina 1din 13

Personality and Individual Differences 39 (2005) 543–555

Personality, gender and self-perceived intelligence

a,* b
Adrian Furnham , Tom Buchanan
Department of Psychology, University College London, 26 Bedford Way, London WC1H OAP, UK
Department of Psychology, University of Westminster, 309 Regent Street, London W1B 2UW, UK

Received 10 February 2004; received in revised form 18 January 2005; accepted 14 February 2005
Available online 11 April 2005


One finding of research on subjectively estimated intelligence is that women tend to provide lower esti-
mates of general, mathematical, and spatial ability but higher estimates of interpersonal and intrapersonal
intelligence than men. Given that personality variables have been shown to affect such estimates, this study
explored the possibility that one reason for the sex differences may be male–female differences in personality
and especially in neuroticism/emotional stability. Internet questionnaires were used to obtain personality
data and intelligence estimates for 379 people. Analyses showed that while neuroticism was negatively asso-
ciated with intelligence estimates, it did not completely account for the gender differences. Factor analysis
revealed two factors labelled artistic/emotional and academic intelligence. Openness and Extraversion pre-
dicted the first factor while academic intelligence was predicted by seven variables and accounted for just
over a quarter of the variance. Open, stable, disagreeable, introverted males who had IQ test experience and
believed in IQ test validity gave themselves higher scores.
Ó 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Self-perceived; Multiple intelligence; Gender; Neuroticism; Internet

Corresponding author. Tel.: +44 20 7679 5395; fax: +44 20 7679 436 4276.
E-mail address: (A. Furnham).

0191-8869/$ - see front matter Ó 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
544 A. Furnham, T. Buchanan / Personality and Individual Differences 39 (2005) 543–555

1. Introduction

Over the last 25 years there has been a great interest in self-assessed or self-estimated intelli-
gence. Starting with the early work of Hogan (1978) and later Beloff (1992) many of these studies
have concentrated on the widely replicated sex difference in these estimates (Furnham, Clark, &
Bailey, 1999; Furnham & Gasson, 1998).
Studies from over 20 countries from China (Zhang & Gong, 2001) through to Germany
(Rammstedt & Rammsayer, 2002) and Scotland (Bennett, 2000) have shown males give signifi-
cantly higher estimates than females for general ‘‘overall’’ intelligence estimates (Furnham,
Hosoe, & Tang, 2002). This difference is consistent across countries and populations (school,
children, students, adults) although there are wide differences in level (Furnham, Rakow, &
Mak, 2002; Furnham, Reeves, & Budhani, 2002). Also, that if participants are asked to estimate
multiple intelligence such as those suggested either by Gardner (1983, 1999) or Sternberg (1997)
sex differences only occur with respect to mathematical/numerical and spatial intelligence (Furn-
ham, Rakow, Sarmany-Schuller, & De Fruyt, 1999; Furnham, Shahidi, & Baluch, 2002).
When asked to estimate relatives, studies suggest that people implicitly believe in the Flynn
(1987) effect in that every generation is rated higher (by between 3 and 10 IQ points) than the pre-
vious generation. Furthermore, the sex difference appears to be consistent across generations
(Furnham, 2000, 2001).
A third line of enquiry has examined the relationship between estimated and psychometrically
tested intelligence (Borkenau & Liebler, 1993; Paulhus, Lysy, & Yik, 1998). Correlations between
estimates and scores tend to be around r = .30 but recent research has suggested that these might
increase to as much as r = .50 given the tests used and the way estimates are established (Cham-
orro-Premuzic, Furnham, & Moutafi, 2004; Furnham & Chamorro-Premuzic, 2004; Moutafi,
Furnham, & Paltiel, 2004).
A few studies have looked at the relationship between personality and intelligence (Chamorro-
Premuzic & Furnham, 2003a, 2003b). Furnham, Kidwai, and Thomas (2001) found there were
significant correlations between various estimates and measured abilities (i.e., verbal r = .26;
numerical r = .35) the relationship between actual personality and intelligence score was low. A
more recent study regressed the big five personality scores of 231 adults on four self estimates:
a computed mean score (of estimates on the seven intelligences) and three factor scores resulting
from a varimax rotated factor analysis on the estimates of the seven Gardner multiple intelligences
(Furnham & Thomas, 2004). Personality factors accounted for 17% of the variance and indicated
that open, agreeable, stable individuals gave the highest estimates.
Furnham and Thomas (2004) demonstrated that emotional stability/neuroticism significantly
predicted intelligence estimates, with more stable people providing higher estimates. Similar find-
ings arise from work with other populations and estimation methods. Canizares, Torres, Boget,
Rumia, and Arroyo (2000) found a negative correlation between neuroticism and subjective esti-
mates of cognitive function in people who had undergone surgery for epilepsy. These subjective
estimates were independent of objective measures of cognitive performance. Comijs, Deeg, Dik,
Twisk, and Jonker (2002) found that in a large sample of older adults (free from cognitive decline)
neuroticism was positively associated with self-reported memory problems. Taken together, these
studies suggest that high neuroticism may well be associated with lower subjective estimates of
various cognitive abilities. This is consistent with the finding that women underestimate overall
A. Furnham, T. Buchanan / Personality and Individual Differences 39 (2005) 543–555 545

on mathematic/numerical and spatial intelligence, given that women typically score higher on
measures of neuroticism (e.g., Costa & McCrae, 1992).
Women also make higher estimates of emotional (inter/intrapersonal) intelligence (Petrides &
Furnham, 2000, 2003; Van der Zee, Thijs, & Schakel, 2002; Van der Zee & Wabeke, 2004). There
is evidence that emotional intelligence may be linked to personality traits: for example, Newsome,
Day, and Catano (2000) argued that scores on one emotional intelligence test largely reflected
emotional stability. Yet it is well established that women score higher on Neuroticism suggesting
that whilst they maybe more sensitive to emotional cues in themselves and others, they tend to be
made more anxious and stressed by this.
This study had various unique features: First it was a web administered voluntary test on line.
Second, 10 multiple intelligences were estimated; the ‘‘new’’ light Gardner (1999) dimensions plus
two rejected by him. Only one previous study has used all 10 dimensions to assess self estimates of
multiple intelligence (Furnham, Tang, Lester, OÕConnor, & Montgomery, 2002). Third, it assessed
IQ test beliefs and experience which have been shown to be related to self-assessed intelligence
(Dweck, 2000; Furnham & Ward, 2001).
This study set out to test one central and four minor hypotheses. The central hypothesis was
that the consistent male–female difference in self-estimates may be primarily a function of trait
neuroticism as it has been established both that females have higher neuroticism scores than males
and also that trait neuroticism appears to relate to lower personal estimates of trait functions
It is also predicted that multiple intelligence will factor into ‘‘core’’ academic (verbal, mathe-
matical, spatial) and ‘‘social intelligence’’ dimensions (musical, body-kinaesthetic, interpersonal
intrapersonal) (Furnham, Tang, et al., 2002) (H2). Thirdly, it is predicted that intelligence test
experience, more than beliefs about IQ tests is a significant predictor of self-estimated score (Furn-
ham & Ward, 2001) (H3). Fourthly that added in blocks of variables, personality traits (the big
five) demography (age, sex, education) and IQ test experience would each add significantly to the
amount of variance accounted for in self estimated intelligence (H4). Finally, it is predicted that
H3 and H4 would apply to ‘‘core’’ academic intelligence but not to social intelligence (H5).

2. Method

2.1. Participants

There were 379 participants of which 129 (34%) were male. They varied in age from 15 to
80 years though two thirds were between 21 and 40 years. Most completed the questionnaire in
Europe (29.6%), America (44.9%) or Canada (17.7%) though there were respondents from Africa,
Asia, and Oceania. Asked to specify their highest level of education achieved there were 2.1% with
only primary school, 14.2% with secondary school, 7.7% with vocational/technical training, 27.7%
with some University education, 26.1% with an undergraduate degree, 11.3% with some post
graduate education and 10.8% with a post graduate degree. In answers to three specific questions;
82.3% said ‘‘yes, you can become more intelligent’’. In all 69.1% said yes to the question ‘‘Have
you ever taken an intelligence test?’’ and 62.1% said yes to ‘‘Do you believe intelligence tests mea-
sure intelligence fairly well?’’
546 A. Furnham, T. Buchanan / Personality and Individual Differences 39 (2005) 543–555

2.2. Materials

A set of WWW pages were created for the purposes of data acquisition, hosted on the Univer-
sity of Westminster web server.
Personality was assessed via a Five Factor inventory providing indices of Extraversion, Neuro-
ticism, Openness to Experience, Agreeableness and Conscientiousness, as operationalised in the
Five Factor Model of Costa and McCrae (1992). This 41 item inventory was derived from the
International Personality Item Pool (IPIP; Goldberg, 1999) and previously validated for use on
the Internet (Buchanan, Goldberg, & Johnson, 1999). Details are available from the second author.
The materials used replicated those previously employed in a paper-and-pencil study (Furn-
ham, 2000, 2001). At the top of the page was a piece of text describing the distribution of intel-
ligence test scores and an image of the normal distribution, with IQ scores, standard deviation and
descriptive labels (e.g., ‘‘average’’, ‘‘gifted’’) marked along the bottom axis. Following this was the
text ‘‘But there are different types of intelligence. We want you to estimate your overall IQ and
your score on 10 basic types of intelligence. Your scores on the personality test you have just
taken will also be used in analysing the data’’. Below this, participants were asked to provide
an estimate of their general IQ by typing a number in a response box. A brief definition was sup-
plied for each type of intelligence.
Participants were then asked to indicate whether they believed one could learn to become more
intelligent, whether they had ever taken an IQ test, and whether they believed IQ tests measured
intelligence fairly well.

2.3. Procedure

Participants were recruited through an existing personality assessment website (apply to second
author for website address) that hosts a Five Factor personality inventory as described above.
This has been ‘‘live’’ on the internet for several years, and attracts over a thousand visitors per
month. Of the approximately 9300 people who completed the personality inventory during the
period of the study, approximately, 700 (an exact number cannot be given due to multiple submis-
sions—see below) went on to submit data on the IQ estimation pages.

3. Results

Before results were analysed the date were screened, processed and cleaned: details from second

3.1. Sex differences and neuroticism

Table 1 shows the means for the 11 different estimates of intelligence. First men and women
were compared using a MANCOVA with the overall and 10 multiple intelligences as dependent
variables (varying age, education, test experience and beliefs about intelligence). This was signi-
ficant (F(11, 349) = 6.60, p < .001) and indicated males gave higher self-estimates than females
on some combination of the dependent variables.
A. Furnham, T. Buchanan / Personality and Individual Differences 39 (2005) 543–555
Table 1
Means (standard deviations) and ANCOVA results for male–female sex differences
Estimate Male N = 129 Female N = 250 F
Overall intelligence 124.02 (14.37) 116.48 (12.68) 23.16***
1. Verbal or linguistic intelligence (the ability to use words) 120.36 (17.49) 118.39 (15.35) .40
2. Logical or mathematical intelligence (the ability to reason logically, 118.71 (19.65) 105.45 (16.15) 46.97***
solve number problems)
3. Spatial intelligence (the ability to find your way around the environment 118.45 (18.04) 108.48 (17.02) 25.14***
and form mental images)
4. Musical intelligence (the ability to perceive and create pitch and rhythm) 107.34 (19.13) 103.6 (17.87) 2.90
5. Body-kinesthetic intelligence (the ability to carry out motor movements) 107.54 (16.49) 103.80 (16.06) 4.10*
6. Interpersonal intelligence (the ability to understand other people) 114.85 (18.50) 117.32 (14.80) 2.51
7. Intrapersonal intelligence (the ability to understand yourself and develop a 118.92 (19.34) 117.19 (15.75) .36
sense of your own identity)
8. Existential intelligence (the ability to understand the significance of life, 118.77 (18.53) 116.97 (16.09) .71
the meaning of death and the experience of love)
9. Spiritual intelligence (the ability to engage in thinking about cosmic issues, 109.09 (19.52) 109.13 (18.06) .01
the achievement of a state of being e.g., achieving trance states, and the ability to
have spiritual effect on others)
10. Naturalistic intelligence (the ability to identify and employ many distinctions in 110.22 (17.26) 106.55 (15.74) 3.40
the natural world e.g., categorizing species membership)
p < .05.
p < .001.

548 A. Furnham, T. Buchanan / Personality and Individual Differences 39 (2005) 543–555

Table 2
Means (standard deviations) and t-test results for male–female personality scores
Variable Male N = 129 Female N = 250 t
Extraversion 27.90 (8.26) 29.90 (7.05) 2.34*
Agreeableness 25.77 (5.33) 27.35 (4.33) 2.92**
Conscientiousness 32.81 (7.96) 35.68 (7.56) 3.45***
Neuroticism 20.18 (7.00) 22.03 (6.87) 2.47**
Openness to experience 26.6 (5.25) 27.59 (4.75) 1.84
p < .05.
p < .01.
p < .001.

A series of ANCOVAs (with the same covariates) were then run on each of the intelligence esti-
mates (shown in Table 1). Men and women differed on their estimates of overall, logical, spatial,
and bodily-kinesthetic intelligence, with men providing higher estimates on each.
Sex differences on the personality measure are shown in Table 2. As predicted, women had
higher neuroticism scores than men (t(377) = 2.47, p < .01) with means of 22.03 (SD = 6.87)
and 20.18 (SD = 7.00), respectively (Table 2). Also as predicted, neuroticism correlated negatively
with the four intelligence estimates on which men and women differed (Table 3; correlations be-
tween all personality variables and intelligence estimates are presented in Table 4).
Accordingly, the four significant ANCOVAs were repeated with neuroticism as an additional
covariate. Gender differences remained significant for the overall (F(1, 363) = 22.02, p < .001; esti-
mated marginal means 123.4 for men and 117.0 for women), logical (F(1, 360) = 42.94, p < .001;
estimated marginal means 118.1 and 106.2), and spatial (F(1, 361) = 22.29, p < .001; estimated
marginal means 117.7 and 108.8) intelligence estimates. However, there was now no significant
effect of gender on bodily-kinesthetic intelligence (F(1, 360) = 3.05, p > .08; estimated marginal
means 107.1 and 104.0).

3.2. Regression analyses

The five personality factors were first regressed onto the overall estimate of intelligence
(F(5, 365) = 9.81, p < .001, Adj. R2 = .11); then the personality factors plus demography (age
and education) (F(7, 363) = 7.84 p < .001, Adj. R2 = .12); then personality plus demography, plus
the answers to the three questions about intelligence (F(10, 360) = 12.06, p < .001, Adj. R2 = .23).
The results for each of these models, along with the final regression, in which gender was added,

Table 3
Correlations between neuroticism and intelligence estimates for which there were sex differences
Estimate r N p < (1-tailed)
Overall .093 379 .035
Logical .111 376 .015
Spatial .099 377 .027
Bodily kinesthetic .186 376 .001
A. Furnham, T. Buchanan / Personality and Individual Differences 39 (2005) 543–555 549

Table 4
Correlations (PearsonÕs r, two tailed) between personality scores and intelligence estimates
Estimate N Extraversion, r Agreeableness, r Conscientiousness, r Neuroticism, r Openness, r
Overall 379 .119 .095 .034 .093 .186***
Verbal 377 .009 .007 .041 .019 .219***
Logical 376 .151** .141** .049 .111* .068
Spatial 377 .008 .109* .007 .099 .131*
Musical 377 .001 .005 .015 .012 .181***
Body kinesthetic 376 .195*** .066 .072 .186*** .168***
Interpersonal 376 .301*** .238*** .136** .184*** .206***
Intrapersonal 376 .123* .047 .040 .172*** .245***
Existential 375 .155** .091 .096 .139** .320***
Spiritual 376 .084 .161** .034 .120* .364***
Naturalistic 376 .023 .046 .114* .048 .227***
p < .05.
p < .01.
p < .001.

are shown in Table 5. Males who had taken an IQ test and believed them to be valid and who were
stable, open, introverted and disagreeable gave the highest estimates.

3.3. Factor analysis

An exploratory, VARIMAX rotated factor analysis yielded two factors that accounted for just
over half the variance. An oblique rotation yielded almost identical results. Essentially the results
indicated the first factor comprised the socio-emotional intelligence and the second the academic–
cognitive intelligence. Musical intelligence loaded almost equally on both factors. Loadings of
each of the estimates are shown in Table 6.

3.4. Further regressions

Table 7 shows the results when personality, demography, beliefs and gender were regressed
onto the two factor scores. The regression for the socio-emotional factor was significant. It indi-
cated that open extraverts who had not taken an IQ test believed they had a higher score. Only
test experience added additional variance in the other regressions. The regression onto the second
factor was also significant, both in the loadings and the amount of variance accounted for. In the
final model tested, the results for the second factor academic–cognitive intelligence were almost
identical to those for the general estimate in Table 5.

4. Discussion

The regression analysis shows that while several variables (including neuroticism) do predict
estimates of general intelligence, gender itself accounts for a significant proportion of variance
over and above any personality variables, demographic variables, or beliefs about or experience
550 A. Furnham, T. Buchanan / Personality and Individual Differences 39 (2005) 543–555

Table 5
Results of regressions onto overall IQ estimate
Beta t Adj. R2 R2 change
Model 1 .11 .12
Extraversion .20 3.50***
Agreeableness .22 4.00***
Conscientiousness .00 .01
Neuroticism .25 4.35***
Openness .26 4.97***
Model 2 .12 .01
Extraversion .19 3.44***
Agreeableness .23 4.07***
Conscientiousness .01 .20
Neuroticism .24 4.08***
Openness .25 4.82***
Age .03 .47
Education .12 2.28*
Model 3 .23 .12
Extraversion .16 3.03**
Agreeableness .20 3.76***
Conscientiousness .00 .07
Neuroticism .24 4.35***
Openness .22 4.34***
Age .05 1.01
Education .09 1.76
Learn to be intelligent .08 1.79
Taken a test .32 6.86***
Tests valid .09 1.95
Model 4 .26 .04
Extraversion .12 2.41*
Agreeableness .16 3.07**
Conscientiousness .04 .83
Neuroticism .17 3.17**
Openness .23 4.71***
Age .06 1.19
Education .09 1.71
Learn to be intelligent .08 1.83
Taken a test .31 6.63***
Tests valid .10 2.16*
Gender .20 4.18***
Note: For final model, F(11, 359) = 13.05***, Adj. R2 = .26.
p < .05.
p < .01.
p < .001.

with intelligence tests. The same is true when one looks at the factor scores: gender significantly
predicts the second derived factor, on which logical and spatial intelligence have a very strong
A. Furnham, T. Buchanan / Personality and Individual Differences 39 (2005) 543–555 551

Table 6
Factor analysis of the 10 multiple intelligences
Intelligences F1 F2
Interpersonal .84 .03
Intrapersonal .77 .24
Existential .71 .33
Spiritual .64 .32
Body kinesthetic .50 .20
Musical .39 .37
Logical .02 .84
Spatial .24 .72
Naturalistic .43 .57
Verbal .38 .54
Eigenvalue 4.12 1.15
Variance 41.15% 11.46%
Note: Highest loadings are shown in bold type.

loading. Beloff (1992) attributed these replicable and robust effects to socialisation as did Beyer
(1999). That is, cultures socialise hubris into males and humility into females, which accounts
for outliers who have modest psychometric IQ scores who believe they are bright (predominantly
males) compared to those with high IQ scores who profess only modest scores (predominantly
Previous work has shown that women provide higher estimates of their interpersonal and intra-
personal intelligence than men (Furnham & Petrides, 2004). However, this was not the case in the
current sample, either for the individual estimates of interpersonal and intrapersonal ability, or
for the first derived factor, on which these variables had the highest loadings. A possible explana-
tion for this may be the way in which participants were recruited—all members of the current
sample were people who had an interest in psychology and their own personalities in particular,
given that they had chosen to go to a personality-assessment website. It is thus possible that the
men in the current sample were (or at least considered themselves to be) higher on ‘‘emotional
intelligence’’ related constructs than average. The desire for self-exploration that presumably
motivated these people to take the personality test is theoretically consistent with higher levels
of intrapersonal intelligence, in terms of GardnerÕs model. Thus, the failure to replicate the find-
ings of Furnham and Petrides (2004) may be largely attributable to this sampling bias.
When personality (the big five), demography (sex, age), test experience, and attitudes and gen-
der were regressed onto the overall self-estimated IQ score (see Table 3) it was apparent that these
factors accounted for a quarter of the variance. Open, stable, disagreeable, introverted males who
had taken an IQ test and believed in their validity gave themselves higher scores. Age and educa-
tion had little effect as did the Dweck (2000) self-theory. Personality alone accounted for about a
10th of the variance, which was doubled by test beliefs and experience. Over and above these fac-
tors gender accounted for only three percent of the variance.
These results concur both with Furnham and Ward (2001) who demonstrated that test experi-
ence is a strong predictor of test scores (no doubt through feedback) and also that personality is
predictably related to self-estimates (Chamorro-Premuzic & Furnham, 2004; Furnham & Cham-
orro-Premuzic, 2004; Furnham & Thomas, 2004).
552 A. Furnham, T. Buchanan / Personality and Individual Differences 39 (2005) 543–555

Table 7
Results of regressions onto the two factor scores
Factor 1 Factor 2
2 2
Beta t Adj. R R change Beta t Adj. R2 R2 change
Model 1 .18 .19 .11 .123
Extraversion .20 3.79*** .23 4.07***
Agreeableness .07 1.24 .28 4.96***
Conscientiousness .06 1.11 .01 .20
Neuroticism .05 .84 .22 3.87
Openness .30 6.08*** .21 4.00***
Model 2 .18 .00 .11 .00
Extraversion .20 3.78*** .22 4.00***
Agreeableness .06 1.12 .28 4.98***
Conscientiousness .05 .93 .00 .03
Neuroticism .04 .65 .21 3.61***
Openness .30 5.94*** .20 3.84***
Age .03 .47 .03 .55
Education .05 .94 .10 1.84
Model 3 .19 .01 .21 .10
Extraversion .21 3.85*** .20 3.74***
Agreeableness .06 1.10 .25 4.71***
Conscientiousness .05 .97 .01 .22
Neuroticism .05 .87 .21 3.8***
Openness .274 5.41*** .17 3.33***
Age .03 .53 .05 .96
Education .03 .62 .07 1.36
Learn to be intelligent .00 .02 .02 .51
Taken a test .70 2.02* .31 6.43***
Tests valid .07 1.49 .09 1.92
Model 4 .19 .00 .18 .07
Extraversion .20 3.71*** .15 2.93**
Agreeableness .05 .99 .19 3.80***
Conscientiousness .04 .85 .07 1.40
Neuroticism .06 .97 .13 2.38**
Openness .27 5.35*** .19 3.93***
Age .03 .55 .07 1.30
Education .03 .64 .06 1.22
Learn to be intelligent .00 .01 .03 .63
Taken a test .10 2.05* .28 6.21***
Tests valid .07 1.51 .10 2.29*
Gender .03 .52 .30 6.05***
Note: For final model, for Factor 1 (social–emotional), F(11, 354) = 8.63***, Adj. R2 = .19. For Factor 2 (academic–
cognitive), F(11, 354) = 14.15***, Adj. R2 = .28.
p < .05.
p < .01.
p < .001.
A. Furnham, T. Buchanan / Personality and Individual Differences 39 (2005) 543–555 553

As predicted, the 10 estimates appear to form two clear clusters: one comprising abilities in-
cluded in conventional views of academic/cognitive intelligence, the other comprising estimates
more related to social or emotional views of intelligence. One estimate (musical ability) loads
almost equally on both factors which has been found before (Furnham, Tang, et al., 2002).
The regressional analysis onto the two factors scores shows clearly and as predicted that the
four blocks of factors are much more predictive of the conventional/academic conception of
intelligence than of social intelligence. Indeed there were only three significant predictors of the
socio-emotional factor scores and they did not include intelligence. Open extraverts with IQ test
experience gave higher scores.
Gender differences in self-estimated intelligence must be explained in some other way than per-
sonality differences between men and women. This paper has shown that personality and gender
factors relate systematically to self-perceived conventional intelligence. They also show that test
experience (and to a lesser extent belief in test validity) are strongly predictive of these scores.
It is possible that a combination of experiences leads to these findings. Males seem socialised in
many societies into being more self-confident about their abilities. This may lead them into seek-
ing out and doing IQ tests which provide useful (and hopefully valid) feedback on their perfor-
mance. This increases both their confidence in the test and their own ability. Predictably the
personality variable consistently, that is more highly correlated with self-estimated scores is, open-
ness which has been thought of as the best proxy-measure of intelligence (Ackerman, 1997; Cham-
orro-Premuzic & Furnham, 2003a, 2003b, 2004).
This study with its web based administration and international participants panel replicated
many other papersÕ findings which suggest the universal nature of the findings. However, all these
studies have been cross-sectional and the above suggestion implies that various of the factors
examined here conspire over time to lead individuals with a particular socialisation history and
personality to take more of an interest in tests and that these experiences accentuate beliefs in their
own ability.


Ackerman, P. L. (1997). Personality, self-concept, interests and intelligence: Which construct doesnÕt fit? Journal of
Personality, 65, 171–201.
Beloff, H. (1992). Mother, father and me: Our IQ. The Psychologist, 5, 309–311.
Bennett, M. (2000). Gender differences in the self-estimates of ability. Australian Journal of Psychology, 52, 23–28.
Beyer, S. (1999). Gender differences in accuracy of grade expectations and evaluations. Sex Roles, 41, 279–296.
Borkenau, P., & Liebler, A. (1993). Convergence of stranger ratings of personality and intelligence with self ratings,
partner ratings and measured intelligence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65, 546–553.
Buchanan, T., Goldberg, L. R., & Johnson, J. A. (November 1999). WWW personality assessment: Evaluation of an
online Five Factor Inventory. Paper presented at the meeting of the Society for Computers in Psychology, Los
Angeles, CA.
Canizares, S., Torres, X., Boget, T., Rumia, J., & Arroyo, S. (2000). Does neuroticism influence cognitive self-
assessment after epilepsy surgery? Epilepsia, 41, 1303–1309.
Chamorro-Premuzic, T., & Furnham, A. (2003a). Personality predicts academic performance: Evidence from two
longitudinal studies. Journal of Research Personality, 37, 319–338.
Chamorro-Premuzic, T., & Furnham, A. (2003b). Personality traits and academic performance. European Journal of
Personality, 17, 237–250.
554 A. Furnham, T. Buchanan / Personality and Individual Differences 39 (2005) 543–555

Chamorro-Premuzic, T., & Furnham, A. (2004). A possible model for understanding the personality–intelligence
interface. British Journal of Psychology, 95, 249–264.
Chamorro-Premuzic, T., Furnham, A., & Moutafi, J. (2004). Self-estimated personality predicts psychometric
intelligence better than well-established personality traits. Journal of Research in Personality, 38, 505–513.
Comijs, H. C., Deeg, D. J. H., Dik, M. G., Twisk, J. W. R., & Jonker, C. (2002). Memory complaints the association
with psycho-affective and health problems and the role of personality characteristics. Journal of Affective Disorders,
72, 157–165.
Costa, P. T., Jr., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). Revised NEO Personality Inventory (NEO-PI-R) and NEO Five-Factor
Inventory (NEO-FFI): Professional manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.
Dweck, C. S. (2000). Self-theories. Philadelphia: Psychologist Press.
Flynn, J. (1987). Massive IQ gains in 14 nations. Psychological Bulletin, 101, 171–191.
Furnham, A. (2000). ParentÕs estimates of their own and their childrenÕs multiple intelligences. British Journal of
Developmental Psychology, 18, 583–594.
Furnham, A. (2001). Self-estimates of intelligence: Culture and gender difference in self and other estimates of both
general (g) and multiple intelligences. Personality and Individual Differences, 31, 1381–1405.
Furnham, A., & Chamorro-Premuzic, R. (2004). Estimating oneÕs own personality and intelligence score. British
Journal of Psychology, 95, 1–12.
Furnham, A., Clark, K., & Bailey, K. (1999). Sex differences in estimates of multiple intelligences. European Journal of
Personality, 13, 247–259.
Furnham, A., & Gasson, L. (1998). Sex differences in parental estimates of their childrenÕs intelligence. Sex Roles, 38,
Furnham, A., Hosoe, T., & Tang, T. (2002). Male hubris and female humility? A cross-cultural study of ratings of self,
parental and sibling multiple intelligence in America, Britain and Japan. Intelligence, 30, 101–115.
Furnham, A., Kidwai, A., & Thomas, C. (2001). Personality, psychometric intelligence and self-estimated intelligence.
Journal of Social Behaviour and Personality, 16, 97–114.
Furnham, A., & Petrides, K. V. (2004). Parental estimates of five intelligences. Australian Journal of Psychology, 56,
Furnham, A., Rakow, R., & Mak, T. (2002). The determinants of parentsÕ beliefs about the intelligence of their
children: A study from Hong Kong. International Journal of Psychology, 37, 343–352.
Furnham, A., Rakow, T., Sarmany-Schuller, I., & De Fruyt, F. (1999). European differences in self perceived multiple
intelligences. European Psychologist, 4, 131–138.
Furnham, A., Reeves, E., & Budhani, S. (2002). Parents think their sons are brighter then their daughters. Journal of
Genetic Psychology, 163, 24–39.
Furnham, A., Shahidi, S., & Baluch, B. (2002). Sex and culture differences in perceptions of estimated multiple
intelligences for self and family. A British–Iranian comparison. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 33, 270–285.
Furnham, A., Tang, T., Lester, D., OÕConnor, R., & Montgomery, R. (2002). Self-estimates of ten multiple
intelligences: Sex and national differences and the perceptions of famous people. European Psychologist, 7, 1–11.
Furnham, A., & Thomas, C. (2004). Parents gender and personality and estimates of their own and their childrenÕs
intelligence. Personality and Individual Differences, 37, 887–903.
Furnham, A., & Ward, C. (2001). Sex differences, test experiences and the self-estimation of multiple intelligences. New
Zealand Journal of Psychology, 30, 52–59.
Gardner, H. (1983). Frames of mind: A theory of multiple intelligences. New York: Basic Books.
Gardner, H. (1999). Intelligence reframed. New York: Basic Books.
Goldberg, L. R. (1999). A broad-bandwidth public-domain personality inventory measuring the lower-level facets of
several five-factor models. In I. Mervielde, I. J. Deary, F. De Fruyt, & F. Ostendorf (Eds.), Personality psychology in
Europe. Tilburg, The Netherlands: Tilburg University Press.
Hogan, H. W. (1978). IQ self-estimates of males and females. Journal of Social Psychology, 106, 137–138.
Moutafi, J., Furnham, A., & Paltiel, L. (2004). Why is conscientiousness negatively correlated with intelligence.
Personality and Individual Differences, 37, 1013–1022.
Newsome, S., Day, A. L., & Catano, M. (2000). Assessing the predictive validity of emotional intelligence. Personality
and Individual Differences, 29, 1005–1016.
A. Furnham, T. Buchanan / Personality and Individual Differences 39 (2005) 543–555 555

Paulhus, D. L., Lysy, D. C., & Yik, M. S. M. (1998). Self-report measures of intelligence: Are they still useful as proxy
IQ tests? Journal of Personality, 66, 523–555.
Petrides, K. V., & Furnham, A. (2000). Gender differences in measured and self-estimated trait emotional intelligence.
Sex Roles, 42, 449–461.
Petrides, K. V., & Furnham, A. (2003). Trait emotional intelligence. European Journal of Personality, 17, 39–58.
Rammstedt, B., & Rammsayer, T. H. (2002). Gender differences in self-estimated intelligence and their relation to
gender-role orientation. European Journal of Personality, 16, 369–382.
Sternberg, R. (1997). Successful intelligence. New York: Plume.
Van der Zee, K., Thijs, M., & Schakel, I. (2002). The relationship of emotional intelligence with academic intelligence
and the big five. European Journal of Personality, 16, 103–125.
Van der Zee, K., & Wabeke, R. (2004). Is trait emotional intelligence simply more than just a trait? European Journal of
Personality, 18, 243–263.
Zhang, Y.-J., & Gong, Y.-X. (2001). Self-estimated intelligence and its related factors. Chinese Journal of Clinical
Psychology, 9, 193–195.